THE PRIMARY STUDY OF BASEMENT STRUCTURE AND DIFFE- RENCE OF HYDROCARBON RESERVOIR IN CRATONIC BASIN
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cratonic basins are abundant in petroleum deposition and becoming the future field of oil and gas resource exploration with unequal hydrocarbon accumulation and distribution. According to the difference of basement under interior cratonic basin, four types of basin can be identified: rift basement(Michigan and Illinois Basins in north America), orogeny fold basement (Williston basin, between the Canada and US), jointing suture basement (Tarim and Eastern Siberia basins) and stable crystal basement(Carpentaria basin in Australia and Parana basin in south Americ). This classification emphasizes control action of different structure basements to formation and evolution of interacratonic basins, such as Reelfoot rift in Illinois basin, Keweenawan rift in Michigan basin, Mgrich Mafic suture in Tarim basin, KotujAngaraLena folded belt in east Siberia basin and Transhudson orogenic zone in Williston basin. The development of cratonic lithosphere tends to become simple and thin with geological time. Based on the study of deep structure and the rule of reservoir formation, we can find the abundance of oil and gas in basins which have active structures is more better than that in stable crystallization basins. This geological background is highly advantageous to generation and accumulation of hydrocarbon. The oil and gas enrichment degree of cratonic basin is riftbased basin orogeny foldbased basinjointing suturebased basinstable crystalbased basin. Furthermore, the main control factor of reservoir formation is also different among these variety interior cratonic basins.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it